tv Tonight From Washington CSPAN May 15, 2013 8:00pm-11:01pm EDT
following -- pardon me? lee clerk will distribute amendment number three by unanimous consent. the reading of number three is way down the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm going to be withdrawing this amendment through the good faith and work of the -- it's greatly appreciated. what this does is on the energy
title that jobs that have been created by the energy title, 13,000 last year and 8700 projects running our portfolio of energy and energy conservation. >> we should use everything we have. we should use the all-of-the-above approach and the energy title has been effective in that. i want to thank like colleagues mr. mcintyre the custer mr. enyart and ms. bustos for supporting this. it makes no sense to me that we have these opportunities and we spend a billion dollars a day. we can do it at home. it's not -- is broadening our portfolio using what we have in this program leverages for every dollar we put in, $3 of private sector created jobs so with that i would yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman ms. bhutto said she wants time. >> thank you representative waldman and i want to thank you
for offering this amendment. just a couple of stories to share with you to play off of what representative walz said. we have and i hope this is just a quick and meaningful example. in a town called pearl city which is in the district i represent we have a dari farmer a guy by the name is doug block who finances methane digester with these funds and this methane digester turns manure and in this case manure from 800 cows into electricity. that not only reduces them in -- and emissions but also reduces his energy cost and without this funding it would have taken them 20 years to modernize his operation. so that is an example of what something like this can do and i just wanted to bring that to life a little bit. i know our farmers are working hard to increase our energy independence and i can't stress enough how important it is to provide mandatory funding for these programs. that said i know that representative walz and i are going to withdraw amendment
number three and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back and the gentleman withdraws his amendment. are there additional and menace to title ix? >> mr. chairman? if i may. i would like to speak to the issue. >> or recognize. >> one of the things i think we have done right in title ix is moved more discretionary to spend -- spending. five years a long time. if you think about the cell phone use in five years you have a flip phones and a lot of things happen in the course of that time and while i do believe we have got to make sure we hold the hands of the appropriators if you will i do think that we as a committee are headed in the right direction with title ix and moving discretionary funding. it has potential for spending it where it's not necessary if it's mandated over the course of five years and with that i yield back peers be the gentleman yield back his time. are there additional amendments?
are there additional amendments? seeing none, title ix is closed. we now proceed to title x. porter culture, are are there amendments to title x horticulture? are there amendments? are there amendments? the gentleman mr. benishek seeks recognition for an amendment. >> amendment number 54 the desk. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 54 by unanimous can sense their reading of the amendment is way. the gentleman may proceed to an explanation when he is ready. >> thank you for the time to speak on this amendment although i planned on withdrawing this amendment. some of the issues that the underlying text of the bill recognizes. as you may know some of the larger organic certifiers are located in the state of michigan and certifiers are concerned that the underlying tax would punish those that have multiple operations. for example if a certifiers
found that the secretary to have an up or police -- the certifiers should not be suspected from served by an apple orchard operator in oregon. although the intent of the legislation of positive i do not want to see certifiers who have been committed of a narrow violation be punished very broadly. in addition i have concurrence with the confidential lt provisions and for conversations with the other committee members i look forward to resolving these issues and withdraw the amendment and a deal the remainder of my time. >> jump on withdraws his amendment and yields back. the chair thanks the gentleman. are there additional amendments to title x horticulture? are there additional -- the gentleman from california mr. cost amendment at the
desk number 69. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 69 and we will dispense plain animus we will dispense pain and skits and the reading of the amendment and the gentleman when he is prepared to explain his amendment number 69. >> thank thank you very much begin mr. chairman paradigm pleas pleased to take this opportunity to talk about an important program that was initiated back in 2008 the farrm bill involving the organic certification cost share program. as we know organic farming has grown in the united states. the rapid sales have increased despite the recession at a rate of 5% in 2009, 8% in 2010, 9.5% in 2011. 10% and 2012. nationwide organic farming now in america is a 35 billion-dollar a year
industry. domestic production of organic products frankly in many areas connect to public demand and therefore this effort to continue to maintain our leadership is critical and provides jobs and improves the economy. the organic certification and the way it works is the farmers and handlers in kerr to certify their products so that the consuming public knows infected his organic. this annual certification is a process with an outside third party review of all organic operations necessary to provide the gateway for organic marketing. the program is critical to help ensure the integrity of the organic label. otherwise then there would become a question as to whether or not it was valid. certification across all sectors of organic insures consists easy
with consumers and the understanding of what that entails. the caw share, the cost share is particularly helpful to small and medium-sized organic operations. which certification cost can be prohibited without the insistence of many small and medium scale operations which constitute a significant part of the organic farming in our country allows us to continue to proceed and expand the efforts. the use of organic labels across all sectors of food and farming small medium and large farms whether you are type in about milk products like horizon are talking about the small neighborhood farms that we all have in our areas are adding to the bee the value of america's value-added agricultural industry. so, while i don't think the organic should be ignored i know pursuing the amendment through this vote i will return the
amendments but i hope the chairman and the ranking member will work collaboratively with myself and others in the industry to ensure that they do not ignore it as we work this bill through the process and ultimately to the floor and ultimately to the conference committee. see absolutely we will work together with that the gentleman withdraws his amendment and the balance of his time. are there additional amendments under the title of horticulture? the gentleman from oregon seeks recognition for an amendment. >> amendment at the desk number 76 mr. chair. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 76. by unanimous consent the reading of the amendment is waved. the gentleman may proceed with the explanation of the minute number 76 when he is prepared. >> i moved to strike the last word. >> time is recognized. >> before the can i want to acknowledge and thank a lot of folksths
it's a long step, final step in a long process. mr. wells when he served on the teest go-round and miserable from wisconsin i appreciate all the work that has gone on by the team to recognize that organic agriculture is indeed part of mainstream agriculture in america. fiat amendment i am offering today produce a statutory barriers that are currently preventing the creation of organic checkoff programs. the other checkoff programs for other commodities in american agriculture. it will brand usda the authority to consider an application or promotion by the organic sector if they decide to do so. it creates opportunity. this does not create a checkoff in itself and that would define organic as a commodity for the purposes of research and
promotion orders. if promotion orders. it provides a connect producers and handlers a choice. should a promotion be approved by the usda in the future organic operations would be able to select the promotion in order to provide the most benefit to them just like in all walks of life. support and to know that this is again not trying to be conventional versus organic and this is hopefully getting organic into the mainstream of american agriculture. organics is actually as the previous representative from california talked about one of the fastest growing and increasing output during the worst recession in a in history a 35 billion-dollar industry and i think this is an opportunity for us to -- american agriculture i don't care for tearing this country urban folks do not understand where their food comes from. more competition is relentless. they do not have the same standards we do and it's time for american agriculture to band
together and compete in a very difficult marketplace. where they have checkoff programs for milk, cotton and countless other commodities right now. i think it's important for the advertising campaign to make sure american consumers know they are getting the best and healthiest food in the world and is also critical for research. one of the ways that the growers themselves help pay for research to take the burden off the taxpayer on these issues and also best practices. i i will emphasize the check-up program is zero cost to the taxpayer. if something the industry has to agree to buy a supermajority. it's something they have to agree to well no cost to the american taxpayer. congressman wells offered a similar amendment. the amendment was withdrawn under agreements that we would work on this with the usda and thank you mr. ranking member in mr. chairman. the committee staff and others worked on this. usda has confirmed after that
there are no barriers to the implementation of the amendment as drafted here before you. yesterday her friends in the senate considered the same amendment during a markup of the senate farm bill and it passed by a voice vote. a voice vote. i emphasize that. not a single opposition i urge my colleagues in the house to use the same supported and i want to thank the committee for its patients in the process and ranking member and chairman. thank you sir and a bed. >> general many of the back in the chair recognized himself to strike the last word in will be recognized for five minutes. simply put, let's say commodity checkoff programs have traditionally been designed to provide a mechanism for producers of individual products to come together do research and generically promote their
products. i would know that while i very much appreciate where the gentleman is coming from i'm still not comfortable with the language. since organic is a process and ht a product, never authorized a process-based promotion program before and i have concerns about that. i would just simply say to my colleagues i think this needs more work. there is a dramatic difference between a process and a product. it does not mean that i'm not sympathetic to my colleague and it doesn't mean i'm not sympathetic to supporting the industry. it's just at this time i'm not comfortable with the language and the direction it takes us compared to traditional programs that we have all watched work in action and therefore i must in good faith -- the amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield? a point of clarification. this appears to be an example of
anything certified as organic from any other checkoff programs so if there are checkoff programs with respect to a particular product than these folks would be out of that checkoff program and a free ride forever benefits -- [inaudible] it appears that it exempts those folks. the producer actually gets to make a choice. he shouldn't have double jeopardy. what they do get to decide is whether or not they want to certify their product as organic for the promotional order. >> if there is not a promotion for organic and there is a check-up program for the product they are producing, they are exempt out of that program without calling themselves organic? >> no they cannot. as you know all organic production is certified organic. if you are trying to game the
system like anybody that would game the system there's an easy way for usda. >> help me understand this. notwithstanding promotion latta person that producers handles and markets may be exempt from the payment under a commodity proposed law with respect to a cultural commodities that certifies organic or 100% organic. >> again if i may he has to make a choice. he can only be exempt from the conventional order if he decides to go with the organic order. >> but if it's not an organic order he cannot exempt out? >> it's a conventional commodity assessment. >> i would ask a question my colleague in the theoretical sense. if i'm in her gimmick or this or i can pick which program i want and determine which program might be the cheapest or i would be able to decide which way to go? >> absolutely and hopefully to promote american agriculture. i yield back the balance of my
time. >> does anyone else seek recognition? strike the last word. seeing no other requests, the gentleman from wisconsin seeks recognition and dice him strike the last word mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank the colleague mr. schrader for bringing the amendment. you know i am struck by some of the folks on the more conservative side or our side of the aisle that have issues with organics. here is an industry that came up out of nowhere very entrepreneurial and oftentimes small. kind of the heart of america's entrepreneurial assessment and these folks have created a product within agriculture that demands a higher price and is a free market system and they have created markets of $800 million each year and this is something we have to be applauding not
condemning. i don't see a checkoff is being a real problem. the industry has to pay for it and they cover it and they are willing to it to promote their own products. this seems like a pretty good approach. there is already an organic exemption under the current one i don't know why this would be such an issue. and it's also such that check us when you get into those programs the usda rules prohibit you from disparaging conventional so it's not like they are going to disparage and promote what they do. and so while i'm a huge supporter of conventional at culture and quite frankly i buy a lot of agriculture conventional food myself that i would like to have the choice to buy organic and it's my right to buy her gimmick. these are home grown american products, so i commend mr. schrader for bringing themy
colleagues to support it. >> would the gentleman yield.? >> i will yield back. >> you make the point about not disparaging but how do i, how do i present my organic without disparaging nonorganic pork? >> look you can present something in a positive whether it's organic pork or beef or corn or any vegetable they talk about how they grow it and how they raise it and why they do it that way and then the consumer has the right to choose, to purchase products that are often more expensive in the marketplace. that is not disparaging somebody else's system. >> but when you are moving a process as opposed to a product, the product concept is clearly delineating whatever checkoff moves forward in that particular product. the process could be anything that you want to sell under this
concept of organic but we all agree to certification but we recognize the difference. i mean there is already organic. industrynd quite frankly this committee recognizes that there is afferce. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes i would yield. i mean the generic act rarely prohibits a disparagement. it's not allowed to do that. you will recall, i assume the conventional pair guys would call foul if there was organic guys disparaging conventional pairs. i think the american consumer understands what her gimmick means to them. to some people they don't care. two other people that may have allergies or sensitivities may like the idea of being organic. mr. chairman i share your concern and it's untraditional you are absolutely correct but i
think the point here is to hopefully position american agriculture not trying to catch up to with the american consumer wants. we need to be ahead of them a little bit and get the american consumer the choice. it's not an either/or. this is in all of the above. we are facing all this gia most definitely can either band together as a committee and as an american agriculture or we can say no, this is the way it's always been and we want to do it that way and it does not get as to where we need to go at the end of the day. did agriculture future depends on value-added crops whether pork or beef. i think it's important for us to recognize that if we are going to compete going forward we have to get over our old -- this is not the 1970s and this is actually the 2000 time for us to hopefully lead american agriculture into the future and give more options to the
consumer and more food producers that unfortunately are not healthy in the way shape or form. >> reclaiming my time, i also want to make it clear i'm extraordinarily proud of our conventional industry. this country is feeding the world and this is not about an either/or. it's about and with that my time has expired. >> the junk woman moves to strike the last word. he is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to direct a question to the sponsor of the amendment. it says it cost $22 million. what is that money come from? >> that comes from the producers itself just like many of the checkoff programs. >> how do you know it will be 22 million? >> based on the organic production that is going on right now. [inaudible] >> i do not know the assessment at this time. there's not checkoff program.
we are not establishing a checkout program. we are given the usda and everybody conventional people to chance talk about this to decide whether they want to go ahead and put a program in place. it's an opportunity for usda to do so when i they do so at that point they will decide what it might be. >> maybe the wording of this description, the amendment strikes the repeal of the national organic certification kosher program and provides $22 million for producers to offer fees. if this is simply a mechanism to set up a vote later on on a check-up program, why does it cost $22 million? >> that is a different bill. >> all right, nevermind. [laughter] >> mr. chairman? i would suggest to my colleagues that at 8:20 we all know wr ssuu
happy. >> i move to strike the last word. >> the gentleman strikes the last word. >> i will take a minute. this is really not an either/or. it is a choice. it's a choice not only by american consumers but it's a choice by american producers. what has not been set in this discussion is a phenomena that i see taking place throughout the valley and other parts of california and america. that is farmers and dairy people are producing both organic and nonorganic products. and they do it exist they are competing which american farmers ranchers and dairy men do better than anybody else. i have got a group of her others that have three dairies and two dairies are conventional milk production and one dairy is organic. you know, they are making money every way they can and i don't
think because they are an organic dairy they have a disadvantage over other dairies and so these brothers are very innovative and very competitive. i have got farmers growing 10 different crops, half of them organic and half of them are not organic. farmers are making choices and consumers are making choices and now it's a 35 million-dollar year industry and i don't see why we wouldn't allow this to continue in the best of the entrepreneurial spirit of american farming to let this take place. i spoke more than a minute and i apologize. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i believe the gentleman from georgia seeks recognition. strike the last word? >> strike the last word and my wife and i are those that choose organic milk. we like the fact that it lasts longer. she chooses organic eggs and i really don't care about whether
it's organic or not and it's a free choice that is out there. i originally was going to support this. i think one of the differences between the two industries is traditional agriculture is not engaging in an attack on the organic agriculture. if you go to the old ca web site-based bell out specifically policy moratoriums on gmo's. i think that is one of the things that has caught me and raises my concerns is that industry lack of respect for traditional agriculture. again i have a tremendous amount of respect for mr. schroeder and mr. ripple. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> just a quick point mr. chair.
>> thank you mr. chairman. i yield to mr. schrader. >> i appreciate the majorities concerned. we are talking about usda. they would not be able to do that. i am sure the different groups may represent their products and that's fine but this is about fairness in agriculture and trying to get us all in the same boat. thank you mr. chairman. >> will the gentlelady yield? i just want to take a second to say that from my perspective i think it's a pretty thoughtfully worded amendment and this is an area of the rural economy that is really flourishing in upstate new york. i think setting up the possibility for this checkoff program is certainly reasonable and i plan to support this. thank you and i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentlelady yields back and the gentleman from washington has been waiting very patiently. the gentleman is recognized for
five minutes. >> has trying to work my way through the actual language of the bill and with the sponsor said. subsection e provides for an exemption of certified organic products. to promote energy exempt from assessments and sub paragraph 4 of that program says termination of effective. the subsection shall be effective until the date at which the secretary issues and organic commodity in accordance with subsection f. so what i heard you say earlier was that this exemption only applied if there were both in the organic program and a nonorganic program and what your exemption does is it allows the organic folks to exempt out of any promotion or program assessment until you get the organic program so that is what your amendment does. is that what i heard you say?
>> currently organics are exempted 100% in this changes it to 95% which is what usda's language already says an existing law. >> the exemption won't go away. >> all you are doing is setting up the process. >> obviously unfortunately you know how slow the institutions around your work and it will take a year or two for this process to work through so we actually get a checkoff set up. in the meantime usda asked that we have an exemption to match up with their current law in their current procedure so that is all that does. >> i reclaim my time. the process and the action of this would allow the organic producer of pork let's say to exempt out of the checkoff program and while pork consumption is being promoted and he is selling his without paying a promotion program this looks to me like they're getting a free ride on this thing and i'm going to oppose it. >> he has to actually pay the other program.
he can't actually exempt out and get a free ride. >> but your program says he is out. >> has already out and if i may mr. chairman. the point is right now organics are out altogether. this at least gives them -- >> then why do need the exemption? >> as i said with usda the goal is to give usda and organic agriculture -- >> how did they get out? >> to make that choice and again americans get their free choice. >> i get their free choice piece but how do he get their free ride peace? subsection e if all you want to do with this amendment is set up the opportunity for an organic promotion order the assessment is there why do you need it? >> that's just a transition from where we are now. >> why do you need to do an exemption? >> i don't think it's all that confiscated. we are trying to conform with usdi right now to get to where hopefully you and i would agree
to give them a choice. >> in the meantime they are getting a free ride. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. seeing no additional requests, the gentleman moves to strike the last word in peril to his own health from his colleague. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i was going to say anything but this is a commodity chekhov program come up pork, beef, milk and apples or whatever they are soybeans, corn. we already talked about this being a process so i would make it more -- is a brand. that is what the trade associations do and the individual businesses do. we have to remember that this is a commodity chekhov program and this is moving away from that more towards the branding and that is why i think it's a tough
decision in this process but we have to remember it's a commodity check-off. >> would the gentleman yield? the gentleman make good point. several years ago this congress made a very political decision to allow for the branding of poultry as organic poultry. not fed organic feed, done as a political favor to get votes of certain members influenced by people in the poultry industry that wanted to label their product organic sound organic feed to be too expensive to do so. so you have a wide array of meanings of what organic is and to have a promotion based on simply saying it's organic, not only is the gentleman from oregon right that organic means different things to different people that also means different things to different commodities. so to get away from checkoff for commodities and go to something
like this i think carries with it a considerable amount of perils and inaccuracies in terms of what consumers are actually getting when they get this promotion that says you are getting organic. the gentleman makes a good point and i yield back here at. >> the gentleman yields back. seeing no other questions we shall proceed to vote on amendment number 76. all those in favor of the amendment by the gentleman from oregon number 76 signifies so by saying aye. although suppose signifies so by saying nay. the chair who is deaf in one ear is going to rule the nose have no's have it in the chair recognized the gentleman from oregon. the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. the clerk will call the roll on amendment number 76.
[roll call] [roll call] speeding set seeing no additional press for recording the clerk may report the results. >> devoted 29 yeas and 17 nays. >> amendment number 76 -- are there as amendments -- the gentleman from connecticut is recognized to offer an amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. the clerk is amendment number 51. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 51 and by
unanimous consent the reading of the amendment will be waived in the gentleman may explain amendment number 51 when it is prepared. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment is being offered by myself and mr. custer from new hampshire and seeks to restore mandatory funding for two organic programs which are part of the 2008 farm bill. one area is $5 million for the organic data incentive program which is a data collection program through the department of agriculture and disseminates data regarding agricultural transfer the marketing service. again as we have heard from the last amendment this is an area of american agriculture that is growing by leaps and bounds and is serviced through usda has allowed the industry to get up to date information regarding everything from research to price issues around the country. it's been a very successful
program. i know the chair and ranking member again because of the balancing act that they are engaged in right now have looked at this and decided that at this time not to include this mandatory funding this year. i would note that the senate farm bill did include this as a mandatory item and again i think it's an item we are going to see later in the process on the farm bill, at least at conference. the other is the national organic throw gramlich is a program that works with the usda usda to deal with labeling and issues. again it acts as a referee in terms of trying to help usda for self disputes regarding this issue which again was discussed thoroughly in the prior on amendment and again it was given mandatory funding in the last farm bill is only discretionary authorization in the base bill that we have right now and again this amendment would seek to
restore its a mandatory status. as i said with the other program the chair and ranking member looked at this issue and again at this point decided it wasn't something that they could take care of at this point however the senate did include it as mandatory in their bill and i think it's an item we are going to seek and in the future. again because of consideration of the mr. chair's hard work by intention is to withdraw the amendment that i wanted to yield to ms. custer if she had any comments to add at this point. >> thank you mr. courtney. thank you for offering the amendment. organic is definitely the fastest growing part of agriculture in new hampshire. we don't have commodities and we don't have the large firms but we have the value-added for organic. jerry's organic eggs and stonefield yogurt and lots more. what i want to speak to is the
incredible impact on the economy. these are farms that were on the brink of going out at business and because of organic they are having incredible growth trades, 20%, 40%. there is a cooperative model where there taking neighboring farms that are dairy farms on the brink of collapse and establishing them in the egg business and so it's value-added and its jobs and i want to thank mr. courtney and thank the chair in the ranking member working with us going forward. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman and again i will withdraw the amendment but i will you up to mr. garamendi. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. courtney. not too long ago and maybe it was long ago we were debating trying to figure out how to move 20 billion out of this bill and maybe moved in another billion
or keep other billions in it. we are talking about 5 million here for a very important part of the agricultural industry. it just seems to me that it is foolish for us not to provide the services that the american agriculture needs both existing organic and those who want to get into organic. $5 billion, come on guys and girls, men and women. $5 billion to keep this part of this industry informed and also to protect the value or the organic label? it just seems to me we can surely find a way with billions of dollars moved in and around this building we can find 5 billion to provide the services of this very important industry part of the agricultural industry that my district needs and mr. courtney i yield back whatever time i have. >> thank youmr. garamendi and i'm sure is this process moves forward we will continue the efforts to find those resources
and with that mr. chairman that would deal back in move to withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman moves to withdraw his amendment. seeing no objections the gentleman yield back the balance of this time. are there questions? the gentleman from new york seeks recognition for an amendment great. >> yes mr. chairman i would like to strike the last word. >> gentleman moves to strike the last word great amendment number 49. by unanimous consent we will dispense with the reading of the amendment and the gentleman made when he is prepared to explain his amendment number 49. >> thank you mr. chairman. this has to do with section 10010 and the underlying bill that addresses olive oil. i believe if i understand the intent of what the underlying language is, trying to achieve, and i certainly understand that what we are talking about here
is quality olive oil. that is something that i think we should work together on to address but i just want to point out that the underlying language what it does, it actually will require that of the 98% of the olive oil that we actually consume in this country is imported and what the underlying language does is require that everything shipped that comes into this country will have to be held up at the port and will have to be inspected. the estimates are that it's going to be about $7000 per shipment, $109 per year. this wouldn't even meet the threshold for the regulatory move and let me say this too. not in my district and certainly in upstate new york do we have a company there receives imports from overseas and a couple hundred jobs there. they help distribute that olive
oil and those jobs will be imperiled. i certainly appreciate the quality aspect and the jobs in california which i know are impacted. i think we are going to end up with some issues with compliance because i know that du has raised concern about this underlying language. what i recommend we do at this point is recognized there are issues with our regard to quality of olive oil. we should strike the language and find a better way in a manner that wouldn't hold up the olive oil that we consume is subjected to essentially a 100 million-dollar increase which is essentially a tax and i yield back to. >> the gentleman yields back thierry does anyone else seeks recognition on this amendment? we turned to the gentleman from -- to the gentleman from california mr. kostas.
>> thank you very much mr. chairman. i am opposed to the amendment. to begin with many of our fruits and vegetables such as potatoes and onions and grapes of okot asem pistachios benefit by the import regulation. in fact has permitted inspection of imported products into america since 1954. so why is this important to the impact of olive oil import to grow provisions? there have been massive amounts of fraud that have taken place as a result of the imported olive oil that is labeled as extra-virgin but it's not extra-virgin. sometimes it's involving lesser grades than other kinds of oils. the u.s. international trade commission investigation hearing
disclosed consumer reports that there are significant fraud. this fraud denies consumers the health benefits of extra olive oil and harming the olive oil industry for both domestic producers as well as importers who support the real thing. this regulation merely requires olive oil by the type of olive oil contains. the regulation would will not prevent one ounce of olive oil from entering the u.s.. in 2009 the new york state department of agriculture, the home of state department where my colleague is offering the amendment found such a vast degree of fraud that the state of new york has opted their own olive grape standard. in fact in two for the u.s. olive oil industry partitioned the united states department of agriculture and as a result of
this fraud we now have a usda olive oil grade standard. so domestic producers contribute to the development of the standard. i think we have to have some oversight from those who want to perpetrate fraud and i think this regulation does that. i think the amendment runs counter to that effort and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. we will go back and forth. i saw mr. scotts hand first and i will recognize mr. scott of georgia. strike the last word. >> i strike the last word and i agree pretty much with what the gentleman from what the gentleman from california was saying. we are growing the crop and labeling the crop accurately and quite honestly all this bill does is require the imported oil toe bed in the same u.s.il is and so if it's not extra olive oil
when it is imported it should be labeled as extra olive oil so all we are asking to do is put the imported product on the same level playing field as the u.s. based product quite honestly. the consumer has a right to know whether it's extra-virgin or not extra-virextra-vir gin so with that mr. chairman i congratulate mike growers are doing a great job and growing olives and creating new products and i yield the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. is there anyone on the minority side? the gentleman from mr. california mr. garamendi strikes the last word and is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman i'm getting confused here. mr. scott i am going to have to switch and go back to mr. scott on this one. this is really about truth in advertising and truth in labeling. we really ought to be truthful about it. that's a big issue in my district. we are growing a lot of olives and is becoming a major industry
but it's also a protection issue so we really ought to make sure what we buy is what we are told is really what we are told it is and that is what this will allow. >> will the gentleman yield? >> at october want to yield to you but go ahead. >> unissued labeling i support that. the issue is that we are talking about chemical testing every single lot and you know if this is, we are talking about 90% of the olive oil we consume comes from overseas and has been issued and should be essentially in violation of wto. it will be a 100 million-dollar increase and i certainly applaud what's going on in georgia and california and i'm behind it. i just think think we moved too fast in a language and i think we are going to regret it. i yield back to. >> reclaiming my time it also requires the california or georgia olive oil be properly labeled also.
so they too will have to work with the same standards. as i said earlier it's about consumers, awareness and consumer protection and proper labeling and if somebody is importing olive oil that does not meet or extra-virgin standards it ought not to be sold that way. pretty simple in my mind. mr. scott has got it right and i yield back to. >> the gentleman yields back. on the majority side anyone wish to be recognized? i can't remember which california i saw first. you are recognized to strike the last word for five minutes. >> i strike the last word. thank you mr. chairman. i'm not always big on labeling but this goes to mislabeling on a lot of the olive oil that is imported and we do have some beautiful crops being grown in california and georgia and other places. they go through the steps
required to produce a high-quality product. we have a hearing in california a special hearing on this and it was appalling how poor the quality of the oil that was being passed on coming into this country on consumer, on the consumer shelf. i mean a lot of people attested that it was rancid. people don't know what they are getting and they believe for years that the olive oil they are getting is good stuff when many cases it's actually rancid. what we need to do is to allow the bill in chief to a current i hate to speak out against the amendment but this deal here requires that truly jirgas in labeling. if we want to get the truth out on olive oil weather is extra-virgin or extra rancid we need to know. so said, we can certainly modify as we go
how this works and the quality of oil coming into the country is approved at this point each lot does need to be checked as it comes in. this is a very important thing for the integrity of what the good growers of this nation are producing as well as what the consumer expects on the shelf so unfortunately i can't support this amendment today. i yield it. >> the gentleman yields back and i believe the general fund for new york seeks recognition. you are recognized for five minutes. >> i have to weigh in as a fellow new yorker on the bipartisanship of my good friend from california. i do agree with my friend mr. gibson from new york. i think if you want to know about olive oil you ought to trust the guys from new york and in this case a perfect example of a system that does need to be fixed is the classic case of if it ain't broke don't fix fix it.
it will increase costs to consumers and clog things up and a system that works well and we should leave it alone and i hardly endorsed the amendment by my republican colleague from new york. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. is there additional request for recognition from the gentleman from california? would you like to strike the last word? you are recognized for five minutes. >> the addition of the farm bill is designed to stop the fraud. it affects consumers the u.s. olive oil industry and provides consumers and producers with protection from the fraudulent olive oil. i would agree with mr. gibson that we do not have a large olive oil industry anymore. we did have one of the largest, tens of thousands of acres. california was one one of the biggest and if we can make sure that we are dealing with are
california or national olive farmers correctly then we may be competitive once again but if we are going to allow other countries do not follow the same standards and not follow the same inspections and ship the products in that they would like shift and we are going to put our american farmers at a disadvantage and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized to strike the last word for a final five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think this is california versus new york. i think we may be outnumbered by certain i support mr. maloney and mr. gibson. what we are looking at here is a 100 million-dollar tax on the consumers of united states and as mr. gibson pointed out 90% of the olive oil comes in certainly is imported and has got to be a way of dealing with what might be considered issues on labeling
without dismantling our consumers with a $100 million tax. that is real money. we heard before about 5 million hearing 5 million there but this is $100 billion we can't be cavalier about passing a law that requires 100% inspection. i don't know anything else that comes into this country requiring 100% chemical testing. statistical sampling is the standard in the united states for most anything. i really think this comes down to a 100 million-dollar tax and a way to boost a burgeoning olive oil industry in california. i don't think it's appropriate and i fully support the amendment by mr. gibson. at this point i would yield to my fellow new yorker in case you would like to have any of the last words. >> i think my friend. i want to recap this very briefly in samhsa proud of what's going on in california and georgia and i support the labeling. i'm just saying 100% chemical tw
unprecedented and it's our for going to drive up costs and what i'm suggesting is the intent of what the languages i support. i think we moved to pick land we ought to find a way to address the issues of fraud and certainly the labeling in a manner that does not -- and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman the it's been. everyone yields back. it is time to vote. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from new york amendment number 49. all those in favor of amendment number 49 signify by saying aye. all those opposed, no. the no's appear to have it. those do indeed have it. are there additional amendments to title x horticulture? are there additional amendments? the gentlema recognized, the gentleman from oregon.
>> amendment at the desk number 74. it's an informative amendment that i want to withdraw. >> no need to distribute the amendment. by unanimous consent the reading of the amendment is waved in the gentleman may proceed to explain the amendment when he is ready. >> i strike the last word. this is an issue that has come up in my district and it's important for everyone on the ag committee and frankly in america to understand the have a much better coordination between the department of labor and the department of agriculture. this past year the department of labor came incorporated conducted a very unethical wage and hour investigation that violated the rights of due process of oregon farmers. and i don't make that accusation lightly. no one in my state -- we consider ourselves very vigilant and bad actors should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of law but with the department labor has done is gone to a 1930s textile order that
enables them to hold a product for distribution or sale no matter what type of product it is until they get the results and the jurisdiction that they want. what has happened here it is they actually went into these fields and made an arbitrary decision that the amount of berries that were being picked in these blueberry fields couldn't possibly be picked by a human being at the rate they're going at. theirs ashley said there were 1000 workers more in that field than that farmer said he had picking his crops. ghost workers they called it, ghost workers. without they decided an embargo to his entire crop. they talked him about the fact that he had a right to go to court on this and as we all know during the court case the blueberries are shot, they are gone and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars overnight.
if it's a coat or a jacket or a shoe that's just fine. they actually not only did they without telling him he had due process to argue the point and extorted money from him he also extorted money to pay these ghost workers. they claimed he couldn't pick 60,000 berries in one hour. we know that is absolutely false. we demonstrated that to them. they still have yet to find one of these thousand or however many ghost workers there are. this is an agency that has completely run amuck my friends and not to mess up an excellent farm bill being produced by this committee in the jurisdictional issues. i'm going to withdraw my amendment. my amendment was hopefully to have the secretary of agriculture p. talese consulted his. >> would the gentleman yield for a second? i would like to point out that testimony before a subcommittee
the gentleman may proceed to explain that the men met when he is ready. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this proposal to speak to an issue for multi-crop growers in our nation. many farmers don't produce one crop, they grow several crops. according to the cbo, this proposal would calm at your additional cost of the federal government. the passage of the 2013 farmville, specialty crop growers purchase for the first time. growers of types of fruits and vegetables will no longer be burdened with purchasing multiple insurance policies for each of the crops they grow, but purchase on insurance product for their entire term production. old farm insurance for lower-cost and increase efficiencies and crop insurance production by allowing producers and no hassle option for insuring against risk. we know their souls though to
business. the bottom line i appreciate it what he is trying to do but again let's take this thing one step at a time. if the works at is supposed do we can take the next step to increase the limit. we must exercise appropriate caution going into this so that taxpayers don't get burned and i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back to. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone seeking additional recognition? the gentleman from wisconsin mr. ribble. >> i was wondering if you have any research on how much this would affect the premium? >> by increasing the risk pool it should decrease as you have greater diversity and opportunity for coverage. >> do think think you think it will decrease the premium? that's okay. do you think that will increase the premium? >> yes, sir. >> anyone else seeking recognition on this amendment? seeing none, the question is on
the amendment from the gentleman from north carolina, amendment number 38. all those in figure -- favor signify by saying aye. although suppose signify by saying nay. the ayes to appear to have it. the chairman is going to request a roll call vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]
will seeing none. clerk will call the results of ready. >> to produce 22 yeas to 22 nays, mr. chairman. >> correct. the amendment failed. other additional amendments to title x? the gentleman from california is recognized for it and i'm it. you are on title a letter. i am sorry, if i sit title x, i misspoke. the gentleman is recognized. for adamant. >> yes, amendment number 70 at the desk that i intend to
withdraw a race to the committee. >> the clerk will not distribute. the amendment will be considered red. the gentleman may proceed when it's ready. >> this amendment is important for a stick better. i think we all know how a valuable crop insurance is two cars across the country. clearly this includes important reforms rooftop about. most importantly represents a significant shift to strengthening crop insurance and enhancing the roles that gives farmers to best possibly deal with the issues they have to do it every day. i offer this to enhance the development of alternative crop insurance policies to give producers more choices. more choices better reflects the growing conditions on each individual farm. in many respects, crop reinsurance development architecture is the same
designed 30 years ago. there's so many unique technological advances that we've made in identifying multirow disc that a farmer can face throughout the growing season that didn't exist 30 years ago. policies written today harness the power of the internet. they harness the power of local weather measurements that to a much better job in forecasting weather, that better allows us to manage those risks. you match this is the computational power, increase data, capacity and today producers can realize real-time crop insurance customization as we do and other efforts. i believe we ought to embrace the dirt crop insurance and not get caught up in doing things the way we've always done them. we should resist the system that worked well for some farmers who doesn't keep pace with advances
that ologies american agriculture is an today. especially now we call upon crop insurance to provide more and more of the risk management by expansion of the supplemental shuttle launch space and that is why this amendment recognizes that many companies are to develop supplemental states may develop products that alternatively cover the supplemental space better. in that vein, we should assume that throwing an entirely new set of supplemental systems into the old system will produce better results for our farmers. so this amendment would provide for development of the new crop insurance products that are an alternative to wrongly supplemental coverage options provided in this bill. it is important to the
nature of this amendment to the products could only be considered by the federal crop insurance commission, ncic and the risk management agency, if they have been submitted by an approved insurance provider. said there is a key threshold required by an rma. the risk management agency means the new products will be submitted to the rma and passed rigorous financial safety and soundness checks they would leave the united states department of agriculture to ensure farmers are left holding policies in the event a company might go under. additionally, at the new pilot program and 523 of the federal crop insurance act in hopes of jump starting policy development for underserved commodities and livestocky of this program. the amendment does not grant any
special market exclusivity protection laurie patton. there is no patents like her connection. granted under this amendment. this amendment does not compromise their system. in fact, quite the opposite extreme is by providing new opportunities. there'd be no change in the crop insurance is made available, no change to this new crop insurance are currently developed because the standards would be required. >> this adds another path that applies for alternatives to shuttle us coverage option. the shuttle loss programs on a pilot basis products that serve undercovered risk. we know farming is a risky business. risk management is always a farmers are dealing with every day. i believe this amendment will
provide more crop insurance options for producers while maintaining existing federal crop insurance program that all of our producers support for those that participate in it. and others murmured to be done, mr. chairman on this amendment and therefore request to continue that effort to achieve the goal suppressed in the proposal i just laid out and i want to thank the chairman and ranking member and i yield back my time and withdraw the amendment. >> the chairman appreciates the gentleman suffered and is withdrawing the amendment and yielding back his time. >> are there additional amendments to title 11 crop insurance? the gentleman from california. recognized to offer an amendment. what is your amendment number, sir? >> is a really good question. >> we better figure it out.
>> 114? 100. the clerk will distribute amendment number 100. the unanimous consent the reading will be waived. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain amendment number 190 is prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and members, in the last four years, there have been 140 federal quarantines of various crops throughout the states affected new york, georgia, ohio, florida, texas, california , pennsylvania, virginia, tennessee and wisconsin. there is no insurance program to deal with quarantines. the quarantines are usually caused by some invasive species of one sort or another that has invaded an area, natick difficult if not impossible for
the crops in that particular area, which may be in the process of maturing to be harvested and sold. this amendment would simply authorize the usda to put a program in place that address is crop losses sustained as a result of a federal court to. i would expect most everybody here who represents any agriculture anywhere, whether it is horticulture, such as, greens of various kinds and certainly all the crops in my area would be faced with a potential quarantines at some point in the near or distant future. so this is set up an insurance program for a real unanswered pdd that. that's what it is. the program would have to be
designed to be fiscally responsible and it would certainly lead to support for those farmers would be financially devastated by the quarantine. it's straightforward, commonsense approach to a problem that does exist and is ever more likely to the days and virtually every part of american agriculture. so if you care about european grapevines or mediterranean fruit untreated fruit flies anon anon, you ought to be carrying about this amendment. i've been asked by mr. mcnerney, the principal advocate of this amendment together with myself to offer it, to use this opportunity to enlighten all abuzz and to suggest we work on this in the future. so i will withdraw the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield?
i understand the concern that gentleman is trying to address it and sit headache to the loss and i am pleased to say the ranking member and i will happily work with the gentleman and we thank for his withdrawal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> i move to strike the westward. >> gentleman mr. straight the last word in its recognized five minutes. >> i don't want to belabor this, but the issue raised south american agriculture. we have on our east coast and west coast in southern coast large importations of agricultural products that come to america from all over the world and therefore we're subject to invest haitians. we've had over 140 quarantines as congress and garamond e. indicated. the chair and ranking member work with the nature of this
amendment is helpful given the the wrist we all can be faced with endless circumstance or another when an infestation occurs. california is an example has 41st and from the imported products that come from outside of our country from california ports and harbors. they come on the southern coast of days. the nature of the amendment is worthwhile and we have to work on it as part of the overall farrm bill. yield back the balance of my time. >> agenda many uzbek expect a bounce of his. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and if to strike the last word. >> mr. chairman can i tell you quite reap thereby requite low when the quarantine happened in the last growers and is actually peppers from mexico to cause a
problem and never bankrupt armors because it was the usda did. with that i yield the remainder of my time. >> the gentleman yells back. additional amendments to title number 11 crop insurance? >> mr. chairman, if i may recognize. >> atonement for north carolina is recognized for an amendment. >> earlier we had amendment noted. two members were absent. but consider that amendment enemies defeated because of a typo. i went off to her substitute and the amount of 1.5 to 1.45 to allow for additional coverage. >> with the gentleman yield? menus the number 1.25 is the chairman would focus him? >> i sure would. yes, sir.
[laughter] >> you sir are a very practical statesmen. >> thank you for being a practical chairman. >> mechanically, let's do this correct you. if you have adjustments made to the amendment. we will submit that to the clerk. we were asked by unanimous consent that we waived the distribution of the amendment and we will then proceed to vote on the amend it, which is comparable to amendment number 38 for the adjustment at the $1,250,000. see no objection to that procedure. see no objection, see no objection, are there additional request for recognition? strike the last word. seeing none. seeing none. seeing none. we shall proceed to go. all those in favor of the
modified amendment number 38, signify by saying aye. all those opposed signify by saying nay. the ayes would seem to have it. the ayes do indeed have it in the modified amendment of the doubt it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> are there additional amendments to title number 11 crop insurance? additional amendments? additional amendments? seeing none. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized for an amendment. >> podiatrist unanimous consent i'm able to submit two pages of what i plan to read for the record. >> without objection, the comments will be added to the record. >> i ask very briefly appreciate you and ranking member with working with me on two important person in the underlined title critical to north carolina poultry and with that i yield that. >> are there additional
amendments? additional amendments? seeing none. title 11 crop insurance is closed. we now proceed to the final title. the infamous miscellaneous title. >> mr. chairman. >> i believe i saw the gentlelady seek recognition for her spirit will go back and forth. title 12 miscellaneous docility we should recognize for an amendment? >> yes, thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 92 at the desk is my intention to withdraw. >> the clerk will not distribute by unanimous consent the reading is waived. the lady may proceed for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would need mandatory but is currently voluntary process and that is the requires the usda agencies serving farmers and ranchers are fighter receipt to produce
information or service to your ta. the specified the action taken on additional information and assistance provided come request an icon of reasons she made a request and follow up specified. the automatic provisions to all farmers and ranchers will promote a clear understanding of what additional action is necessary to reduce misunderstandings when the follow-up is needed. documents request for service and actions taken to assure uniform standards or with and document reasons with recommendations for follow-up and encourage employees to answer service requests and suggest additional services. at a time of tight credit and limited resources, it's essential farmers provide thorough and timely information as possible so they can complete their opportunities were scarce resources.
the discrimination arose when producers were discouraged or provided to late application forms. the lack of documentation about this requested contribute to a he said she said situation that delayed or denied benefits to producers. as major changes are made comments are necessary than ever to ensure usda and producers communicate clearly on actions that must be taken to meet eligibility requirements. a non-democracy for his service to benefit all producers and employees by encouraging and rewarding a proactive role by usda in educating producers of the full range of ever-changing benefits available in a timely manner. but that i yield back and ask unanimous consent to withdraw. >> before the gentlelady goes back, which he had for a moment? i appreciate the effort in the chairman and i will work with you on not only do appreciate
your efforts, your comments, your withdraw in your yield. thank you very much. >> additional amendments on the miscellaneous title. gentleman from texas is recognized for an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and amendment number five for consideration. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number five mbit unanimous consent with the reading of the amendment and the gentleman makes plain amendment number five when it's ready. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank my good friend mr. costa for cosponsoring. it's important that we offer this during the july 2012 markup and it passed by voice vote. this amendment seeks to bring at close to the rancor associate with rulemaking. all of a sudden the commander were the fact it went well beyond the language of the two dozen a farrm bill in threat livestock and poultry marketing
as we know it. it's brought to an end to value-added marketing opportunities that producers use to manage financial risk and remain profitable. we will close the book someone will make you months and signify they can market animals how they want to cover when they want to cover what they want to that the government take neediness transactions. i want to thank mr. costa as the syntax producers across this country. pitcher guess that on the amendment to in this issue once and for all think how producers to buy bigger threats to livelihood. we've been coming together of the last four years to delay this when you're at a time. this amendment would put that to rest and i urge the adoption. without i yield back. >> the jenin uzbekistan. the gentleman seeks recognition to strike the last word. >> strike the last word to speak in support of the amendment.
for the new members of the committee, congressman conway and i -- this is a long process, but in 2008, we thought we'd work this issue out. there was mmn at that would have run counter to the regulatory process on what is called the act that underlies the governing of the packing on livestock industry in america. the amendment was defeated, just like we are doing here. we thought that was the end of the story. as the usga was implementing the two dozen a farrm bill, there were folks they are that decided they knew better than a congress that they were going to go ahead and threw a regulatory effort, implement the amendment had been dead by the house activity in the senate at committee.
and so, it really in my view it is an old saying that that when the congress rejects an amendment, the administration in this case, the department decides we know better anyway. we didn't get the change in the law. we are going to go through the rulemaking process. the rulemaking process would've fundamentally negatively changed the way the livestock and poultry are marketed in this country by the value-added process that has made american beef in american poultry and pork among the highest quality in the entire world with value added. american producers get more bang for their buck. congress engaged in this economic analysis and try to defend the effort will make an the 2012 agricultural relations bill. the defunded language is also
included in the year 2013. it just gets better. we just continue to be butting heads with the usda. and so it is not defunded to the end of the year but the reason the amendment is needed is there's no guarantee we will be able to defend it in the next fiscal year. the fix on what you want for all put a rest to the issue that allows livestock and poultry producers to market their animals as the most effective way they can, where they want to come without taking the nature of the transactions. producers no longer have to worry about losing marketing options due to the whim of a regulatory framework rejected three legislative language. this mayor's actions taken by the congress and appropriations bills signed by the president in the last three years. so we need to ensure the livestock and poultry producers
take advantage of the value-added marketing opportunities in order to satisfy their customers entering profitable. the record of the passage of congress reflects the past congressional intent to fix this rule. mr. chairman, i urge a yes vote msi to be unanimous if we -- >> what the gentleman yield quick >> yes. >> i want to add my support to that. it's very important we allow producers to market their products. it is in their best interest and the government interfering with that, so i appreciate your effort. >> the gentleman knows that. >> mr. chairman, over here. gentlelady from missouri. >> strikes the last word as it is was about to say. recognized for five minutes.
>> mr. chairman, i'm happy to support ms. conaway for amendment and i've been involved in the regulatory process advocating against the 2010 proposed rule which went well beyond the intent of the end did not fully consider effects on producers across the country. it led to a commonsense changes during the rulemaking process. it remains than perfect and i support the economy amendment to repeal the farrm bill. i would not be conserving my constituents well if i did not raise concerns i have heard from my poultry growers about their contracting rates. i pork and beef producers are satisfied at the market environment in which were no changes to be made by contacting issues remain between poultry growers and integrators in my district. my poultry growers are very concerned with their capital investment requirements, delivery provisions and arbitration growers contracts.
i support repealing us a moment and look forward to working with the chairman, mr. conway, mr. costa on these issues for poultry growers in my district. i think for the time and go back. >> the gentlelady of that. the chair recognizes the ranking member to strike the last word for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. maybe i can shorten up this discussion. this is a provision that prevented 2008 though. i put the groups in a room and told them they have to come up with a compromise where i was going to impose upon them. they came up with a compromise. we put in the bill and the department overreach. this amendment probably overreaches the other direction because it says the department can't do anything.
maybe this is a lesson to people not to overreach and those folks that want to get the immigration thing resolved, this would be a good example. they can get this thing done. i'm going to support the cement it because the department overreach and i wouldn't normally support what mr. conaway wants to do, but given what they did, they deserve it. [laughter] we are together. cpas are being tossed together. i support the amendment suggest we have a voice vote in the bond. >> agenda manuals back. no other request for recognition we will proceed to go. all is in favor by the gentleman from texas signify by saying aye. others suppose, signify by saying no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do indeed have it.
additional amendments to the miscellaneous title? i come back to this site. gentleman from california, mr. garamendi for them in. >> mr. chairman, agriculture taking place in flood planes. >> your amendment, mr. garamendi quick >> the clerk will submit number 87. by unanimous consent we dispense with the reading of the gentleman may at his discretion pursuit this explanation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. across the united states a lot of agriculture takes place in flood plans. it happens to be one of the least risky thing that could occur in a flood plane in this amendment is designed to raise the awareness of the membership d are facing, especially in my home state of
california. this above speenine flight insurance. the amendment bear may not be germane to this bill. however, i'll take a shot at it. the agricultural economics have dramatic impact on the united states, important to all of us on this committee and certainly to every state. so where there a flood lane, there is a current problem or soon to be a problem. the federal emergency management agency is remapping together with the army corps of engineers most of the nation's flood planes. in doing so, many floodplains are discovering they are no longer in a 100 years certified area, but now in a special flood hazard area. which is not good names if you are in those areas. it restricts the development in
those areas ineffectively curves agricultural development by not allowing at a reasonable cost any additional agriculture or new agricultural buildings. equipment facilities, livestock processing on and on. this is occurring in california in my district in other districts in california. this bill but we talk about here is another to speak within the national flood insurance program a special agricultural program. one in which the agricultural communities who are now and will soon in later years the effect it betty reid not been to have an opportunity to continue to have a productive agricultural enterprise to rebuild facilities as may be needed to repair those
facilities, at two facilities in those areas. i can tell you in the small communities in my district, bayern a goodly affected, including the community which i live. my children wanted to build a horse barn out behind our home in one of the areas. turns out they couldn't because the area has just been remap into a special flood hazard area. we need to have a special type of insurance. overcome this for the last year and half together some of my colleagues in california. we have much more to do. this issue may come under the jurisdiction of another committee. if so, i will have to withdraw. i want the members of the committee to be aware of what this problem is in california now and in those areas will be
remap by fear not. this would be a problem and we need a solution. a larger piece of legislation has been authored. i draw the attention to my colleagues here to this issue and ask you to consider what we must do in the near future for agriculture throughout the united states insert it in large parts of california today. >> with the gentleman yield to the chair? >> yes. >> i thank the gentleman for his cement. unfortunately this is outside the jurisdiction of the committee and i would ask my friend to withdraw. his amendment. >> advocate a ruling from the house? [inaudible] >> your wise and powerful legislature, sir. the gentleman to uzbekistan.
are there additional amendments to title 12, miscellaneous title? the gentleman from iowa has an amendment to consider. >> thank you, mr. chairman. would take up amendment number 71, please. >> i reserve a point of order. >> amendment number 71. the clerk will distribute amendment number 71. by unanimous consent, we will dispense with the reading of the amendment and a gentleman when he is prepared may for five minutes explain his amendment in the point of order has been reserved. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is well known around this committee. i caught to protect interse commerce act. origins go back to .5 years ago when i began to look at the common denominator of what was
happening with products being regulated by referendum or decisions within states. as i saw that have been with commodities, i particularly paid attention when i saw been seeking to regulate the production of pork and beef and chicken's and ducks and geese from individual state, but applying it says came up in the states. i began to realize the constitution as it says in the congress in article i, section eight, clause three says the congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and within the indian tribes. it's an exclusive power of the u.s. congress to regulate interstate commerce. it's not a privacy of the state them in the states are reputed to manufacture production america culture products in effect are simply opposing a national standard within the state. exactly what our founding
fathers suppose. it doesn't serve the purpose of free trade and runs contrary to free trade among the states. i voted bill and we introduced last year before this committee. i don't know if there's another amendment that it is intensively as this amendment has been vetted. we have checked with the parliamentarians and gone through every for this markup that i know of and for the last year without her here trying to find a hole anywhere. i have not found a whole anyway. it is a solid, consistent support reinforcement of the commerce clause in the constitution and expects production of agriculture products listed in the code under the jurisdiction of this committee and each of the states can produce agricultural products and export them to any
other state. if we allow an individual state to been in gestation crates on the pork chops can't get across the border into arizona. other states have done similar things. prohibiting feel cabs be installed. they tell somebody in and how they will take care of cabs that they'll be sure to please california. this congress' job is to regulate interstate commerce. these topics that are part of the amendment are exactly the jurisdiction of this committee. we've noticed that i hope to broaden to other subjects as well within the scope of the commerce. it is well vetted it has broad support a broad support from the american armed your on down the line everybody i can think of, cattle and hogs and mr. chairman, this is something well debated.
it protects our food supply and the objections have generally been answered by the vetting process over the last two years. i urge the adoption you affect the balance of my time. >> does the gentleman from california system enforcement on this point of order? >> yes, sir. >> does the show i wish to extend the point? >> this amendment has to do with interstate commerce. but i title the bill to shift onto the jurisdiction of energy and commerce. >> does anyone else wish to address this point of order? >> this topic has been thoroughly vetted with our parliamentarians over the last few weeks or months. my amendment goes to a title that is our bill and goes to the
section 27 of the agricultural marketing act of 1946. while within the jurisdiction of this committee, specifically the commerce committee were to take this component up, the chairman of an object of a jurisdictional claim. i believe the gentleman's objection is not well-founded and i don't die. >> yes, i move to strike the last word to support the gentleman from california has point of order. i don't know how many members of this committee are constitutional lawyers, but the problem i see notwithstanding the intent and i respect the author of this bill's intent
because he clearly talked about problems that exist with differences in state law. as another principle at stake here for my republican colleagues here who felt the efforts of president reagan to embrace federalism is the whole notion that the states created this country, created constitution and bill of rights, but that there are ways in states to promulgate state law on a host of issues. that is a federalism is all about. there's always a tug of war that exists here in congress and the nine years i've been here between the appropriate role of states, the appropriate role of local government versus the constitution as the supreme law of the land.
i am kind of one of these country lawyers, which is no lawyer at all. but i will tell you that i think this is a very slippery slope in certain states for an example of a national pesticide and herbicide standard. other states have their own pesticide and herbicide standards. we say if in fact that congress no better than the state or that state to allow them to propagate their own law as it relates to herbicides and pesticides. and it goes much further. there are over 150 last in various states that we represent that would be superseded by this amendment were to become law.
i think instead of solving the problems the author would like to solve, i'm sympathetic to some of the issues he's raised. who am i to say what is the appropriate standard for wisconsin or for any other state in this nation as it comes to managing their agricultural industry in a way that they think makes the most competitive and makes her agriculture most effective than their stay. i think while i am sympathetic to some of the issues that the author has raced in the cement and, i think it tramples on federalism and the whole notion states have the ability to regulate their own agricultural industry, whether we may like or dislike some of the lies perpetrated, whether or not by initiative as in some cases are state legislature signed by
governor. so with that, i support the motion by the gentleman from california and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman you affect the balance of this time. gentleman from virginia is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this point of order is not well-founded. virtually everything release to interstate commerce as it pertains to agriculture and therefore the fact that interstate commerce is referenced in the amendment is not by itself sufficient to deny the committee jurisdiction over what is clearly jurisdiction of the committee. will talk a moment about the underlying substance and the motivation behind opposing it but i will assure the members of the committee that the sides of
the argument are very much motivated by issues clearly the jurisdiction and i would urge the chairman to find the amendment is in order. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon wishes to be heard on this point of order. >> i appreciate the comments, but he couldn't be more wrong. as many who served in this committee last to remember if i offered a point of order little bit earlier in that debate, we would not be facing this issue today because it is clearly energy and commerce. let's be honest, folks. just to pick up any way you want it to look. if it's a is a at the end of the day. this is clearly interstate commerce. i am prepared to go to the ranking member and ask their opinion. i'll tell us clearly. forrester products are covered
on this the way this has been worded and that is not necessarily jurisdiction of our committee. that's also the jurisdiction of natural resources. for those of us interested in states rights, let's think about this for a minute. if we adopt the gentleman from ohio is opinion and amendment, another state outside of your jurisdiction, your home state can basically decide to lowball you to all sorts of hybrid practices that can harm your community economically from a public lies and you have no recourse. this is the reason her great forefathers set up the constitution so these practices could not continue. there would not be internal warfare amongst the states have different practices, different
regulations regarding interstate commerce. it's very clear with god to raise ability to regulate the boundaries. the courts have consistently stated as long as the regulation within the state is fairly applied to everybody whether in-state or out-of-state -- >> the gentleman is arguing the underlying amendment. they are talking about if the state is able to set up the situation where they treat everyone fairly around the country will be upheld. will be subject to court interpretations is a great piece of work or to yield that. >> the chairs repaired to roll. a good case is made that it involves their jurisdiction on the basis that it applies at a minimum state laws that duplicate pairs federalized within our committee's
jurisdiction. the point of order is not in order of the gentleman's amendment is in order. the gentleman may precede. the gentleman has explained his amendment. the floor is open for anyone seeking recognition to strike the last word on the amendment. the gentleman from california seeks recognition. >> i perused the king amendment because it takes away authorities from states and it gives them exclusively to the federal government. the 10th amendment of the u.s. constitution establishes many states rights represented by members of the house agriculture committee to enact laws to protect citizens from invasive tiazac diseases, and maintain standards and ensure food safety and unadulterated the products. while this is by ustive, regulan
illinois, indiana, iowa, maine, michigan, new york, ohio, wisconsin and california would be potentially notified. the amendment will target states was to protect safety and interests within their state boundaries. the amendment does not offer a respectful adherence to the 10th amendment. it is instead a dangerous federal power grab creating a prohibitively burdensome government requirement for federal action on import local and regional issues they should be handled by state laws. i know mr. king has done his due diligence to narrowly tailor this amendment to target my state, but the farm bureau different agriculture industries uncertain of their future and validity of their state laws if the amendment were to pass. i strongly oppose its federal overreach which would nullify
state laws protecting public health. i think about this as a former state senator. a lot of thoughts i didn't like were passed, but i still respect the men as many of you who serve in houses before you came here. after looking at some of the bills this would effect, we pulled a list of 150 laws in each of your states. i understand he doesn't like the lopez family years ago were people of california deciding to pass prop two. the dahlia onions in georgia, laboring requirement in alabama, kentucky and missouri. california, hawaii, illinois, oregon, washington. kansas, louisiana, ohio, raw milk. timber in new york, importing
across state lines. i've got an exhaustive list before we openness and trample all over the 10th amendment, we have to think about what this says to every single one of our states in the bills passed over the last several decades. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. does anyone else sick recognition of the king amendment? >> gentleman from california and is to strike the last word recognized >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this was an important issue the last time i dealt with it and i know for the new members here, you want to make the best approach you can and you're conflicted between the commerce clause and the issue of federalism and what rights are states have too and that was notwihs author's intent, congress does not have the authority to regulate
interstate commerce in a way that strip states of their sovereign state authority, traditional authority to regulate, protect safety, morals within their borders. this amendment has nothing to do with interstate commerce and everything to do with interstate commerce. in effect, it is a federal takeover of long-standing state legislative authority. remember when we didn't like the congress passing laws that supersede our ability to do what we thought was best for folks with interstate. this has that same effect. it is a federal takeover from which not only i the 10th amendment, but deprive states of their rates to a
federal or what one would call a republican form of government. for my republican friends, this is very, very problematic. again, we all have flaws enacted in our states. california, mr. denham and i both have proposition 2. i call a condominium for chickens. the fact is that voters passed on an initiative and you can go down the list and look at your own perspective state and see how your industries in those states might be impact did and how they might feel if you go on to speak and tell them, guess so we just stayed? allow you like, we determine we don't think it's applicable anymore.
tear yak i can. let's be clear what we're talking about. effort and it's gone on for people from california for a long time. it seems to want to get to regulating agricultural in ways that most of the rest of the country doesn't want to do. then they view it as a protectionist measure. once it's done and the farmers
in agriculture in california have to comply with it. they try to exclude product from the rest of the country coming in to california. this is not a state's right issue. it's very clearly an interstate commerce issue and for 200 years the united states supreme court has ruled that states cannot pass protectionist measures without response by the congress if the congress chooses to make it. and this is simply a decision by the congress, if it is adopted by the committee, that we don't want to say that states can exclude products out of their marketplace by passing regulations that do not comply with what other states do. we have been successful in this country's economy, the growth for many, many, many decades because we have open commerce. and when we start recognizing
and allowing states to pass regulation and say that products made in other states -- and the state of california has an absolute right and the people of california have an absolute right to tell their producers in california how they're going to rise agriculture products. they can do it as the gentleman from california would agree with me. in unsound ways. as i think they have done in a few instances. that does not mean that they can then without question, without challenge by the congress say no other product in my other state can come in unless it complies with the regulations. if we go down the path, we're going to balkize the free enterprise system and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and oppose the effort of some states particularly california. we have and seen it from california before to try to -- i don't blame the members from california trying to stand up for the state. i blame the state of california for always trying with a big
market like that to say do it our way or stay out of our state. if every state were to do that, we would not have the kind of success and agriculture and other sectors of our economy but the gentleman's amendment is narrowly crafted to cover agriculture issues; therefore, i think it's prudent for the committee to address it. but important for the protection of american agricultural and free enterprise to support this amendment and halt the effort of people to try to regular lit the entire economy by excluding product from elsewhere in the country from their state's market. i would be happy to gentleman. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. as i listen to the debate and i hear of a 150 different means ways this amendment might effect other state legislation, i recall the word when the gentleman from california delivered that statement potentially nullified. potentially. if they were truly nullified, some of that would have gotten to me by now.
as thoroughly as we have vetted this. ly say to the committee, if there's anything that emerges that runs contrary to the intent of this legislation, which i think we all understand in the committee, i'm happy to work with that. i want it to be as good as it can be. effective as it can be. i'm sorry california is far down where you are. that's unfortunate. the rest of this nation cannot go down the same path. and i represent a state that has 52 million layers in it. the second highest state is ohio with 26 million layers. and my congressional district, if it weren't for the state of iowa, and if my district were a state it would be the number one ag state in america. it's the number one ag district in america. that wasn't my motivation. it came before i realized how deep it was.
if you want to bring beef in here, it needs to be produced with the idea and the regulation usda in mind. i'm not fine if california is going to do trade protection. it's not just california. it's other states. it's a patchwork quilt of the issue. we need to draw the line now while we can. i yield back to the gentleman. >> the gentleman yields back. anyone else seeking recognition? the gentleman from california moves to strike the last word and be recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is sparked more than a californian issue. the language of the amendment really ought to be read by all of us, and taken in to consideration. i understand why some are upset with california or various other laws, but the way this is
written, i've not getting to the commerce clause here. but rather the way it's written. it's basically said agriculture products offered for sale for interstate exercise if such occurs in another state or other conditions in addition to the standards and condition plinl to such product pursuant to federal law and the state and locality. so if a locality and county has a certain law in place that allows for a product to be manufactured in -- agricultural product to be manufactured in unsafe way doesn't ofuate the federal law. it can't be sold in every state. it's a broadly written exemption from a state trying to protect not just the agriculture in that state, but also the people of
that state from a badly produced or inappropriately produced or unsafely produced agriculture product. it really gives the standard to the very lowest all of standards within the united states. i understand -- listen, i understand the whole california thing like him. oppose proposition 2. it's there. it's been taken far beyond dealing with eggs. far beyond that. it's all agriculture product. mr. shader mentioned trees. yes. forest products and he mentioned 150 different laws. that's probably far more than 150 agricultural products. in may have been narrowed to deal with the commerce clause and the jurisdictional issue. but it certainly wasn't narrowed
in dealing with agriculture products manufactured somewhere in the united states that at the lowest denominator of safety or any other standard could therefore be sold in any part of the united. i don't think we ought to go that way. not just to protect the e.g. industry which is an argument worthing are. it's broadly i'm not going there. >> i think it would be best to make a state's right argument base order the tenth amendment, might be worthy to actually refer to the tenth amendment to see what it says and actually does. it says, i quote, the pours not delegated to the united states
by the constitution nor prohibited to the state is reserved to the state respectively or the people. so then you have to go back and say, well, is there power that the congress has that has been delegated within the institution article i section viii said the congress shall have the power to regulate among the several states and with the indian tribes. the tenth amendment of the institution doesn't protect the state of california or wisconsin from this. it is delegated to the congress by the institution. the tenth amendment covers that are not dell delegated. it's delegated. or if you went and read the next line of article i section viii to establish a uniform rule ofna doesn't want to allow filipino
or germans immigrant to the state we could. we don't have a national policy open commerce or immigration. this is what the constitution does. the constitution was written by the states collectively. for this very purpose. i would encourage you to sport the amendment. it's the right thing to do. i yield back. >> i believe i have one additional request for strike the last word for the gentleman from tennessee. >> i do. >> recognize for five minutes. >> i would to yield to my good friend for california. as much time as you may consume. >> thank you. let me address the tenth amendment issue. if we want to dive deep to the institution. i think the constitutionality is clear reading through. in the '70s the reason the congress may withdrawal from the state the authority to make certain decisions there would be little left of the states separate and ib independent or a
tenth amendment at all. the question is where do you draw the line? mr. king already talked about he doesn't like what the voters did in california. i get that. several members of the committee were opposed to the bill, but the voters of california spoke on the issue. he doesn't like the gestation greated in arizona. if i get that top too. he probably doesn't like the one in florida. they will be next. you can work out a separate deal on this. a number of states already passed it. what about everybody else? what if he doesn't like maple syrup. you can work out a deal with them? you better talk to mr. king set up an appointment and see if you can set up something. the list goes on and on. timber, milk. a bunch of states have issue raw milk. it you left it up to mr. king.
he'll work it out with you. look, i've been doing this for awhile. i believe you vote. you don't like it you put it out there you vote on it. you don't work a deal as the clock continues to wind down or later in the day because you want to work a special deal for your state. stand on the constitution, stand on state rights issue. if you don't like what is happening in your state. go back and fight it in your state. to undermine the various -- i yield back. >> i believe the gentleman from minnesota had the recognition. >> i would like to yield my time my friend and neighbor in iowa. mr. king. >> i thank my friend and neighbor from minnesota for yielding time to me.
and first, i would say it's about whey do or don't like. it's about the institution. it is about regulating interstate commerce by state and state referendum. when i hear the allegation it's a late deal coming in tonight, i said we worked on this for two and a half years. he coming with a list of 150 that nobody got a chance to vet. i would notice the amendment was a filed at 5:54 p.m. last night. just in time before the 6:00 deadline. and so this isn't about working a deal with me. it's about doing the right thing being consistent with a constitution, the yes has been from wisconsin gave the best argument. i wish i would have made the argument. we must do it. we take an oath to uphold the constitution. it there's a vote against the amendment it implies it doesn't say you don't respect the
constitution. it's clear. it's interstate commerce, it's the jurisdiction of the committee. it fits within the agriculture product. it's an narrowly defined within the jurisdiction of the committee. it's designed so states can regulate themselves. if california wants to regulate any kind of ag product. go ahead and do it. there's nothing that prohibits that. we encourage the states if you want to make the state. do it. it's a part of gientd laboratory that the founding fathers envision. they clearly understood we would have trade protection emerge within the state. that's why the e number rated power of article i section viii clause iii exists. if you were to apply it to foreign trade would you let a foreign country write the same kind of regulation and say for example. that's why we have trade negotiation under nafta. it's a similar thing. it if we can't have free trade between the fifty states how do we negotiate free trade within the neighbors north and south of
us? it's a solid underlying principle of free trade within the state, interstate exercise regulate bid the commerce. there's no jury diction that super seeds the committee at this time. will you feed your duck or geese and when and how? and fifty states scrolled fifty different intitions of -- combinations of those regulation. and iowa can start to regulate against the other stay -- states too. we need to be working together so there's an open flow of commerce and overregulation by a single state bringing this about. this isn't the congress imposing decisions made in places like oregon or arizona or california. this is this congress finally fixing a bad situation that grew out of some people that profit referendum in california. i think a lot of people regret.
everybody i heard speak from california opposed the proposition number two. i would jelled back -- yield back to the gentleman of minnesota. >> i thank you the gentleman from minnesota for yielding. i want to reintegrate they oppose proposition two but oppose the king amendment. there's nothing in the king amendment that tells the state of california that they can't impose these restrictions on farmers in the state of california. i think a bad decision but nonetheless, they did it. if you want to stop the balkanization of agricultural production in america, you have to support the amendment. and send the message to california that if they're going to impose regulations like that. they better take in to account pr country.exclude agricultural
it's a mistake what was done in california. the gentleman from california have admitted it was a mistake. let's not honor that mistake by defeating this amendment. let's pass an amendment that said we have one market in this country and that interstate commerce is regulated by the united states government. it will support free enterprise and agricultural production and growth of agriculture in our country. >> gentleman's time is expired. the chair recognizes himself to strike the last word and be recognized for five minutes. my friend the boxers have
been in the ring several times. they scored several rounds on each other. it's time for you the referee to score the outcome of the match. if there are no other request for recognition. we should proceed to vote. >> mr. chairman, -- [inaudible] >> can i ask a question. >> the gentleman offered an amendment. >> my -- cigarette and tobacco agricultural a product. cigarette is after minnesota for yieldinged -- agricultural product. beer is a agricultural product. manufacturing and processing. my question is are those two products included in this because many states have levels
of alcohol content in beer they do not allow the sale of that particular beer if it's above the alcohol content. my question is would alcohol and tobacco products be included in this? >> will the gentleman yield? >> i would assume that regard to alcohol because there's an amendment to the united states constitution that specific gives the state the authority to regulate that. the state accept varying level of alcohol content. with regard to tobacco there's no amendment in the constitution. i would assume the amendment would apply to tobacco products. >> okay. >> he inquired about alcohol. >> i don't have any clue, as a southern baptist. in the spring of 1933 they defined -- give state the ability to regulate in the state. when prohibition real repealed that in december they give states jurisdiction over the issue and control. that's why we have all the
unique beer laws around the country. not that i know anything about that. that said, since the gentleman's question is answered as best can be answered. anything further would appear to be a debating point the gentleman from california has an amendment that he has asked to be considered an amendment to the amendment. i think that's the right phrase. that's an within the rule, i believe. second degree amendment. therefore amendment number 101 will the clerk distribute amendment 101. and the chair asked unanimous con sent that the reading of the amendment be waived. the as the amending gentleman very slowly explain the amendment so we have time to understand the
amendment. gentleman may proceed for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman make an inquiry. would they not have can he do it at this point now? congressman the only time to offer a second degree amendment before the offer of the amendment describes the amendment. i believe the chairman has allowed the secondary agreement to be considered. >> well, i think he recognized it. he hasn't allowed it. i would challenge it out of order, mr. chairman. >> -- [inaudible] other committees have allowed the many time. it's not another committee. as long as there was not a vote taken on the prior amendment
it's still in order. >> i would note to all party involved in the effort. at sent we will get to a vote. and the will of the body will be expressed in the vote whether it's a vote on the secondary amendment to the primary amendment. there will be a series of votes. and encourage my colleagues at 10:30 at night, i'll stay here with you until sun up if we want to have fun. we proceed in expedition fashion to conclude our business in an orderly fashion. i acknowledged the gentleman it offer the amendment. therefore the chair will rule that the move stands. the gentleman should proceed if in an orderly fashion to explain the amendment so we may move forward to consider it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i plan to proceed very orderly here. let me beefily explain my amendment will protect the right of states previously discussed as how agriculture product standard. the federal government should not overstep in and declare the state protection to be illegal.
my amendment exempt the state from the king amendment allowing them to maintain the state law protecting food safety, fraud, and livestock disease and quality standards. the king amendment doesn't provide certainty that state laws and agriculture industry will not fall under the broad scope. the king amendment has a broad number of ramifications. here is a few identified example that may be effected in this amendment. in order to protect livestock from diseases, tb, and other diseases, iowa, minnesota, and ohio and other states have imposed unique inspection permit testing requirement before allowing livestock to enter their state. the language could prohibit state from clearly authority from the federal government. to ensure the nutrition con trent of low-fat and fat-free milk is high in protein. milk ?old california must meet
higher protein level than the federal standard. the federal standard do not compensation for lower fat content by requiring the addition of nonfat milk solid when fat is reduced. milk solid in the state is higher in. the kipping -- manufacture to the higher standard of milk process elsewhere in sold in the state would only have to meet the federal standards. that would create confusion for consumers, lost jobs as a state milk produced at the cheaper cost would displace local bottling plans. i can go and on and. there's over 150 examples in there. there should have been a copy passed out. >> should be at your desk. >> it's a clear state right issue. there are the love laws i don't like. there are a lot of laws i voted against. as a voter, propositions i voted
against. t thatoes not give this committee the right to tram l all over the state laws when they feel that it's the right time. regardless of which party is in control. this is a very slippery slope we decide to pick and choose which laws we uphold that states already passed and puts us in a i think, in a very candling -- damaging time as it pertains to the institution. >> i yield back. >> gentleman yield back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. strike the last word for five minute. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is -- if you're going look at the state right issue. let's look at it right of farmers in the 49 other states that are producing agriculture products lawfully under federal law and presumably their own state laws this amendment by mr. king does absolutely nothing absolutely nothing to prohibit the people in california from imposing this standard on agricultural production in california.
but said they can't impose that standard on other states. mr. king's amendment protects interstate commerce, protects the concept of one market and protects the right of farmers in the 49 other states with regard to laws in california. what the amendment secondary amendment offered by the gentleman from california does is gut the gentleman from iowa's amendment. and it has exactly the same effect as if you were to defeat the gentleman from iowa's amendment. it certainly is not my purpose to do that. i believe that we're going promote agricultural production in the country. if we support the amendment, and therefore i oppose the secondary amendment and again support the king amendment. yield back. >> going back and forth. the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> i have not participated in this debate web and while my colleagues are eloquent. what i watched on television i heard the arguments five times
from everybody, and i don't know we need to hear it again. it's 10:30 at night. let's vote. i have heard enough. >> gentleman makes a very good point. request for recognition. we freed vote on the secondary amendment. all of those in favor of the amendment to the king amendment in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? >> no. >> the no have it. the amendment is defeated. we now return -- the gentleman well within the right for the roll call vote. the clerk will call the rote on -- role on the amendment. to the king amendment. [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vo
unanimous consent the reading will be waived and mr. chairman. >> this amendment is identical to the amendment that passed last year and it is a simple common-sense equipment to allow spectators to avoid prosecution. with inherited illegal fighting events show up with different locations in the day a password that fuel the industry to make it profitable spectators are more than mere observers there the interco part with illegal activity and it would not happen without spectators. 49 states allow the rest of prosecution of spectators there is no provision to prohibit attendance. fighters exploit the spectator loophole that the first sign up for re mini
quickly abandoned animals and claimed to be spectators to avoid prosecution this loophole has thwarted efforts to prevent the eliminate dogfighting and cockfighting. file most prosecuted at the state level the largest operations are multi jurisdictional and warrant a federal response and in those cases the entire cast of characters should be prosecuted. michael vick was prosecuted under the federal law but only five people were indicted. far more than five people have been present at the dogfights. the lack of penalties for spectators allow most individuals involved to avoid prosecution for court earlier this year pork -- four people were indicted for the cock fighting pit and 300 ever-present but only four were indicted in a federal court and it was stationed at the entrance to take admission fees and
other investigations have found children with from grossi is in the fbi investigation of clark county tennessee found a 10 year-old girl was running money back and forth between the gamblers at a cockfighting pitch. in texas with the investigation there were animals fighting to the death in children are usually present and in my amendment it would be a crime to bring a child to it and will fight the national children's advocacy center in national district attorneys association and the center for prosecution of job abuse endorses this legislation. we note and of fighting is inhumane and kroll since 1976 there is a federal law and place to make it illegal to engage in the fights or possessing animals for fighting. each of the prior farm bills have included provisions
with overwhelming and near unanimous support to close loopholes sales strengthen penalties. my amendment refines existing law to eliminate the barbarian inhumane practice to complement the work of state. and in addition 15 members of this committee and seven republicans and eight democrats have co-sponsored the animal fighting spectator prohibition act by tom marina and myself that as co-sponsors. my amendment is similar to the bill. my amendment prohibits knowingly attending an animal fight or to bring a child to an animal fights. i want to make the two final points. but it states a violator must knowingly attend or bring a child to the venture. animal fights don't just happen accidentally their id orchestrated. spectators usually go to a
secret location, need a password and need more than five months to get did my amendment is not for those who fight unprovoked by organizers. these events are no place for a child their violins, of glory, a spectacle and often associated with other criminal behavior. for these reasons i urge my colleagues to support the common sense amendment to close this loophole once and for all and we have passed this with the last farm bill and a similar provision of the farm bill so i hope we can get this passed quickly. >> will yield for a question? >> since we strike the language i am not an attorney, i have never had anything to do with this but explain to me what the penalties are of the risk of the statue what are the maximum criminal penalties?
>> with this provision the penalties would be fines to set a penalty up at two under $50,000 or no more than five years in prison or both. it is up to a judge to decide what the appropriate course would be but that sets the parameters of. >> but that quarter of a million dollars? >> the gentleman moves to strike the last word. >> are you recognizing me? i appreciated. in opposition of the amendment i joined the concern about animal fighting and i supported it when i was chairman with the
efforts to impose penalties for transporting cox across state lines and fighting animals across state lines because clearly that was the will for the federal government. some of the other things right now you can anticipate business related items but now this amendment addresses the spectators at the events and just imagine some person not too smart are taking their 12 or 4460 year-old today and will fight i think that is reprehensible and i agree with the intent but is a better to separate that son and daughter from their parents for five years while the parents are in prison because they made the mistake of doing that? i would suggest this is something that is better left for the states to address because it involves spectators who will
primarily be from within the state just like the gentleman from california that correctly notes. [laughter] the king amendment let me finish it leads to california with chicken cages on farmers in california we should leave to california or massachusetts or any of their states the right to improve -- impose these penalties and leave out the federal government because this does not primarily in fall the state commerce. >> number two and in my opinion more importantly the penalties greatly exceed the crime of taking a child if you go to the animal fights also who is the spectator? is it somebody there who was law enforcement?
because it is lawful to have an animal fights in some states. is it someone investigating undercover to try to expose it? to eradicate? this amendment is way too broad with its scope encompassing people that it ought not to encompass a and it is far too severe. i would think most people would agree separating a child from their parents for any period of time would not be a better thing to do they and leaving it to the states to determine what the appropriate punishment should be for taking the child to an amendment. >> i would be happy to yield. >> when you were chairman use supported banning dogs between state lines? >> absolutely. for fighting purposes.
the hither the poll is what to expect taters allow this continual it crosses all the polls say borders we heard that from law enforcement in people who care deeply about this issue. so in to the status quo is fine but we can pass the amendment again and i hope we will once again. >> the gentleman yields back to ann strike so last were recognizing himself for five minutes. i agree with all my friends it is wrong and horrible and illegal in every state will be alluded to earlier with the delaware for -- will attract -- welfare act but if five years in prison to of a $50,000 if my memory serves right the second --
the king had drawing and quartering justin he made them mad they would hang you and chop off the limbs and head and about your debts. the point* is there comes a time when how many times can you murder the dead? how many times can you punish the perpetrators? everybody needs to vote their conscience and i think we need to approach. if i was in parliament i think it would go against drawing and quartering and with that i yield back and look for additional recognition. >>. >> with the strike the last word one of two veterinarians in the congress and cannot believe this is even controversial here.
i respect everyone's opinion but the law clearly states we will not be hurting some child to confine someone that does not deserve it. there is an opportunity to do justice. any psychologists in this country the person normally attending or committing in all abuse is what we're talking about an abuse the next step is abused the child. then abuse in the family that is what happens. those that are talking about will be causing problems for that child going forward if
they're doing this on a regular basis they should not be without particular parent. making erratic data their child would not lead to separate them we need every tool in the toolbox to participate in these events it is great for the animal going forward. >> anyone else? the gentleman strikes the last word 30 seconds' worth of five minutes. >> i just want to say i agree with you in the former chair items a and a federal issues and the penalties are draconian clear the animal fighting is wrong but
penalties are too draconian and i oppose the amendment. >> si no other request let's proceed to vote on the amendment. number 33. all those in favor signify by saying i. all those opposed? >> it appears the no's have it. >> mr. chairman we will ask for a recorded vote and we will call the roll on amendment number 33. [roll call]
[roll call] >> the clerk will record the tallies when prepared. >> the vote is 28 28/17. >> it is adopted. >> figure mr. chairman this is as boring as a box of rocks. >> the amendment number? >> a number 34. >> number 34 the clerk will distribute amendment number 34 by unanimous consent we will dispense with the
reading and we may proceed to explain it when you are prepared. >> to offer an amendment number 34 for consideration in grants usda to consider an application for promotional work from the stone industry. in remains of ivy international business that calls for investments that is only available in certain areas for r winter reaffirm the amendment does not the establish the order it just allows the same choices like the agriculture has to petition for such there is precedent the usda is the only the infrastructure to handle the promotion and with that ideal. >> will you yield. >> i learned about checkoff programs today and the good they do and how they put
together i would suggest if we're going to do the checkoff we might as well add this to the west and i would say when you peel back >> thank you, mr. chairman i yield back. >> any other request for recorded votes all those in favor number 34 signify by saying aye all those opposed? the aye have it. hurray for the checkoff program. who seeks to be recognized? mr. crawford? >> mr. chairman i have a substitute amendment number 100. >> what is your amendment number? >> 61.
and the gentlelady wishes to offer. >> i withdraw smith that clerks will distribute amendment number 61 and mr. crawford with unanimous consent will dispense with the reading of the amendment and mr. crawford may explain it. >> the usda plans to make significant changes to the national poultry improvement plan it has been successful since the inception to prevent detect a and addressing avian diseases. but their joint federal industry and a collaboration to allow for a robust response like a bird flu but
through the poultry industry it has contributed to the new elimination of avian borne diseases and it is the gold standard with the reputation in to have american poultry to the foreign export markets and the third-party status and industry led initiative for the international trade promotes close cooperation unfortunately usda's taking steps directed toward search centralize control by moving the headquarters from the poultry producing south to the washington area. and was the nature of the general conference committee with government appointments. but to agree upon domestic institution with a track record of cooperation and a long list of accomplishments so to preserve the democratic nature to keep the programs administration where it belongs.
and now with that i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman will strike the last word and now recognize for five minutes. >> i strike the last word. >> this amendment is a critical part to ensure that america is poultry industry remains it is a critical part of this program to make sure that takes a healthy and provides a credibility of the export market which is very important. half i think we should support this amendment to
say the poultry industry in california strongly supports this amendment and i would not want to do the harm of the author of this amendment but the poultry industry 58 recommends we endorse and support this amendment. and i'll yield back. >> the gentleman yells back. i see no request and would proceed on amendment number 61. all those in favor signal teefourteen aye the aye have the amendment number 61 is adopted are there additional .mendments to title 12? >> i have amendments at the
desk. >> day klerk's will distribute amendment number 26 and we will dispense with the reading of the amendment the gentlelady may proceed my bill would save taxpayers millions of dollars to eliminate duplicative regulations and stop a potential trade war with our partners and secure it america's economic region the farmers and ranchers. in this time of economic uncertainty congress must eliminate to promote economic opportunity of that
they would eliminate the transition of the inspection from the fda to the usda. i want to thank my colleagues to clear the understand the importance of repealing this unnecessary program that would require usda to create new government inspection program specifically for catfish. the senate's repeal the duplicative cat fish inspection program by voice vote not one single senator objected and even the president agrees this program should be eliminated but to ensure the safety of the meat and poultry supply. this is one issue that politicians can't support it if usda catfish program is implemented it would have wrote regime where usda inspected catfish and fda will inspect all other seafood. so every u.s. facility that processes cat fish or seafood are subject to
duplicative regulations by both usda and fda. and did scientific concludes that the city of catfish's tongue known so the new government regulations that increased compliance cost without scientific basis. the current fda process cost $700,000 per year or $7 million over 10 years. usda estimates that the catfish program would cost $30 million and $40 million per year thereafter are $170 million over 10 years which is $163 billion more than the fda program already in place. it estimates it will need over 90 government inspectors to implement the program and according to their own estimates they
have 40 spend over $20 million to develop this program. think about all the things we have debated today where $170 million of funding could be but more meaningful use. this program looking at bureaucratic waste working tirelessly to i have also heard from people from misery to reverse this is important as the soybean farmer i can tell you agriculture exports are the lifeblood of missouri farms and they're a significant concern if implemented it is in trade retaliation against farmers and ranchers. and without a scientific basis. >> and they submitted comments opposing the cathay's program. some opposing are the americans so arabian association, national meat association, national milk producers, national pork
producersounc turkey federation, the grains council and poultry and a council. in may 2012 the nonpartisan government watchdog solfeggio published a report that says seafood safety responsibility it should be not assigned usda but then the gao k mount with duplicative in wasteful programs. this program was the number one program they mentioned that should be repealed because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. so repealing the duplicative catfish program is a common-sense approach to eliminate wasteful spending. this is an opportunity for us to demonstrate to the american people that we can work